Stem cell research far from Frankenstein

October 09, 2008

A paragraph from a recent column caught my attention because of my interest in embryonic stem cell research. However, then my English major kicked in to look at this opinion more closely. “So we become like Dr. Frankenstein, manipulating life to satisfy our own desires. In the case of embryonic stem cell research we literally use the parts of dead human beings for our own benefit.” According to The American Heritage Desk Dictionary, the adjective literal or the adverb literally is used when we mean “conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative or most obvious meaning of a word or words.” In this instance, literally simply does not fit. A problem immediately arises with the “parts of dead human beings.” There are no “parts” in the tiny blastocysts used for embryonic stem cell research, only undefined microscopic cells, and there are certainly no “dead human beings.” Far from it - these tiny cells can only be seen with a powerful microscope. They have been compared to the period at the end of this sentence. A literal statement, however, could be made paraphrasing the original paragraph. In the case of cadaver organ transplants we literally use the parts of dead human beings for our own benefit. I wonder why the column about scientific ethics does not compare these life saving transplants to Dr. Frankenstein's manipulation if using parts of dead human beings is morally objectionable. Checking MayoClinic.com Web site, I found this statement, “On any given day 4,000 people are waiting for a heart transplant in the United States.” Consider the many other organs that can only be obtained from “dead human beings” and the need is astronomical. Should we use the organs from people who have indicated on their driver's license they wish to become donors on the event of their death or use a child's organs to save lives when the parents have given their permission after their loss? Or would that be considered like Dr. Frankenstein manipulating life to satisfy our own desires? It is using “parts of dead human beings for our benefit” after all. I have long wondered how a person could morally support organ transplants from cadavers, and yet vehemently oppose using tiny discarded embryos for the same purpose of saving or making life better. This entire subject would be irrelevant if it people were not dying during the delay. The subject of embryonic stem cell research has become distorted and contentious. Somehow, some ethicists have dug in their heels condemning the life-saving research without even considering the similarity to cadaver organ transplants. Why are they so focused on stopping research on discarded embryos? Cadaver organ transplants are very well accepted and they “literally use the parts of dead human beings for our own benefit.” Why aren't they compared to Dr. Frankenstein's experiments? People who have had transplants from cadavers or are waiting for a suitable organ would not view it as Dr. Frankenstein's manipulation, nor would the donors of these organs. They view it as making good out of a tragedy. They view it as a new chance for life. Of course it is a heart-wrenching decision for the parents of a child whose life has been taken away through accident or disease. The ethicists respect the decision of the parents because of the good that can come out of tragedy. Why can't they respect the wishes of the parents of the discarded embryos? Aren't we talking about the same thing? Ruth Wood lives in rural Cresbard. Write to her at the American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, S.D., 57402, or e-mail americannews@aberdeennews.com.